Pleased to welcome a positive outcome at FIFA for Client Ivan Zoric, Serbian professional football coach, in the employment-related dispute against Buildcon FC from Zambia regarding the outstanding payments. And while the outstanding remuneration was evident, the status of the coach was equivocal. Namely, the sole title of the employment contract indicating the position of the technical director did not correspond to its substance as the obligations and benefits stated could clearly be associated only with the position of the coach, especially to participate in training and matches, in form of limitation not to engage in football nor to participate in any sports activities other than for the club, bonuses for match performances and league position, while the club clearly used the term "coach" in many places in the contract as in with pledging to provide medical care to the "coach", with also possible disciplinary measures being stipulated in case of disobedience, in particular lateness for camps / training sessions and non-follow up with the medical treatment, determining that the club may deduct money from the "coach's" monthly salary, again all points associated dominantly with coaches. The role of the technical director including a wide range of more strategical responsibilities among which to oversee the selection, playing philosophy and style, while also having a remit to step in on the departure of the manager, can be of the coaching nature itself, but in this regard valid coaching license, match reports and issued coaching ID as proofs are essential, as in this particular case. Pursuant to well-established jurisprudence of the FIFA PSC, which mostly refers to the coach definition given in CAS decision 2009/A/2000 where FIFA accepted hearing the claims of the coach and the technical assistant against the same Mexican Club Tigres de la UANL , it is instituted that a coach is the person in charge of leading the team on the sports ground during competition and practice, while a person will also qualify as a coach if they are responsible, at least partially, for the tactical choices regarding the team. There was no doubt that the Claimant's position satisfies these conditions and that he was performing on the position of a coach per se, as the activity which is a football-specific occupation, meaning that he falls within the scope of jurisdiction of FIFA s deciding bodies who awarded outstanding remuneration to be paid. This final and binding decision once more reiterates FIFA and CAS stance of focusing on the substance of the contract and relationship, and their rights and obligations, that should before all form activity which is a football-specific occupation for the status of the football coach to be established, rather than focusing to mere pro forma term or title used in a perfunctory manner, while looking for the newly FIFA RSTP regulations more precisely regulating the coach role to further adhere to clarity in resolving such ambiguous matters.